https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48284979
>housing appreciating
>stocks appreciating
Are you an LLM?
>housing appreciating
>stocks appreciating
Are you an LLM?
But I don't think the examples you chose are very good. It's not "stocks appreciating", it's "$1m in stocks appreciating at 9%". The stocks are not an actor in that sentence. "$1m in stocks" is a thing that is having appreciation done to it.
If I had written a self-contained clause saying "stocks appreciate", that would have been a good example. But that's not what I wrote.
Which one is the actor there?
Help me learn, ESL.
There's nothing to learn from jstanley; he's a crackpot.
The subject of "appreciating" is "$1m in housing", or if you want to narrow it down as much as you can, the subject is the word "dollars". ("$1m in housing" is shorthand for "one million dollars in housing".)
I am definitely high risk for crackpottery, but not sure I'm quite there yet.
Which hasn't prevented you from expounding at length on your obviously false ideas.
What would you label yourself, if not a crackpot?
How? "appreciate" in this sense is not a transitive verb. There cannot be an agent.
In any case, I don't think you need to defend this. It's not about humans never using that pattern, it's about how frequent it is relative to LLMs. Individual counterexamples do not disprove a trend.